Here’s what that ‘We’re Suing The Developer’ banner on Beach Drive is about

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

A seven-house West Seattle development called The Orchard is home to a fight over trees.

This past week, several readers called our attention to a banner hung on the front of one of the new homes in the development, at 5620 Beach Drive SW [map], very visible to passersby. The banner announces, “WE’RE SUING THE DEVELOPER.”

The banner also names the developer, Calvin White, so we checked King County Superior Court files and found the lawsuit against him and his firm Charcoal Creek LLC, filed almost three weeks ago.

The lawsuit filed by homeowner Aron English focuses mostly on tree-cutting at the site, which has drawn attention previously. One nearby resident contacted us about it last February, calling the tree-cutting “carnage.” At the time, we looked up the arborist’s report for the project, which among other things assessed many trees on the site as “dead, dying or in poor condition.” The neighbor who contacted us back then also was worried about the slope in the area and how tree removal would affect it.

But that’s not what the lawsuit is about. First, it contends that the purchase and sale agreement into which English entered early this year says “Any of the following items . . . located in or on the Property are included in the sale: . . . shrubs, plants and trees planted in the ground.” The lawsuit also says developer White provided materials during the sale/escrow process “depicting a number of significant trees on the Property, which provided aesthetic appeal and privacy from neighboring properties in The Orchard development.”

The property was in escrow last February when, the suit alleges, English’s fiancée – “who also acted as an agent on the transaction” – got a phone call from White asking if the couple wanted any trees on the property removed. She consulted with English and, the suit says, texted White to say no – but over the next week, the developer “hired a landscaping or tree removal service to cut down several trees on the Property, without Plaintiff’s consent.” The suit alleges this was done to “improve the viewshed” of another homesite in The Orchard. That same week, the sale of English’s house closed, and he started moving in. The next day, “a complaint was filed with the City of Seattle alleging that trees were being removed from the Property without proper permits.” (City records show that complaint was closed in early March, but the record points to two other complaint filings, one of which remains an active case, all alleging improper tree cutting.)

Meantime, a few days later, on February 20th, the lawsuit alleges, the developer hired more tree-cutters, who then removed the wood and dumped it next to the development site, “advertised as free firewood.” But that wasn’t the last of the tree-cutting, according to the lawsuit, which says that sometime in the ensuing weeks, the developer knocked on English’s door to say “he planned to remove a tree on the neighboring property, which he said belonged to him” – but then the homeowner did a property survey in May and says it showed the tree was actually on his property.

At this point, unrelated to the trees, the lawsuit also gets into two other grievances with the developer, one involving an appliance-company truck allegedly running over and breaking a “concrete fixture … resulting in loose wires,” another alleging installation of a water-pressure valve was bungled.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for alleged wrongs including “timber trespass,” breach of contract, misrepresentation, and “unjust enrichment.” We contacted attorneys for both sides to offer the plaintiff and defendant the chance to comment. English declined comment, according to his lawyer. White’s response to our inquiry, through his lawyer: “Charcoal Creek and Mr. English have an ongoing dispute over the location of a boundary line that started when Mr. English removed landscaping that was not on his property. When that dispute could not be resolved, Mr. English filed a lawsuit alleging the developer improperly removed plants and trees, and placed his banner on his deck. Charcoal Creek disagrees with the claims made in the lawsuit. However, Charcoal Creek has and will continue to work with Mr. English in a reasonable manner to resolve their disputes.”

If the case isn’t settled, it’s preliminarily scheduled to go to trial in October of next year.

43 Replies to "Here's what that 'We're Suing The Developer' banner on Beach Drive is about"

  • Auntie November 7, 2021 (8:06 pm)

    “Fall mountain, just don’t fall on me…” (Jimi) Maybe y’all shouldn’t be building on that slippery, slidey slope at all! How is this even allowed?

  • SpencerGT November 7, 2021 (9:26 pm)

    Suing your developer is probably the most Seattle thing you can do haha.

    • Frog November 8, 2021 (12:51 pm)

      This is definitely rich people problems.

    • JVP November 8, 2021 (1:17 pm)

      This whole thing is peak Seattle 

  • KP November 7, 2021 (9:32 pm)

    Oh, the troubles of the Uber rich.Those houses never should have been built, no amount of engineering will keep them from sliding down, no matter how many trees are kept or taken down.

    • Tracey November 8, 2021 (8:52 am)

      I, too, would like to know how these buildings on slopes get past City development codes.  I am no engineer but it seems like a recipe for disaster.  I wonder about home owner’s insurance on critical slopes.  Anyone know/understand Seattle’s requirements for building on steep slopes? Minimum standards?  I used to be naive enough to trust these projects were safe.  Then came Oso.

  • AT November 7, 2021 (9:45 pm)

    Whenever I walk by there I think it’s so ironic that they named it The Orchard then cut down all the trees.

    • flimflam November 8, 2021 (8:05 am)

      Came to post that same sentiment. Gross.

    • Kram November 8, 2021 (10:18 am)

      Haha, this made me actually laugh out loud!

    • Timber! November 8, 2021 (12:36 pm)

      Agree!

  • anonyme November 8, 2021 (6:36 am)

    The two trees in the forefront both appear to be at risk.  The one covered with ivy appears to be dead or dying, and the other has been limbed up so high as to make it dangerous in wind.  I can’t see the top of that one, but it may not have enough foliage remaining to survive.  No healthy trees should have been cut, and all parties in this kerfuffle sound like spoiled children.  It’s kind of mind-blowing that this structure was allowed at all.  It looks like a perfect candidate for collapse or a slide.

  • J November 8, 2021 (6:39 am)

    They should cut that ivy off the trunk of the tree in the photo or they’re going to have one less tree in the future. 

  • Joan November 8, 2021 (7:17 am)

    This developer sounds like a real piece of work. Seattle desperately needs a stronger tree ordinance, and why on earth do people keep getting permits to build on dangerous ground? Developers dug into a slope to put a house on a dangerous narrow curved road – 20th Ave SW, that goes up to Holden from Deldridge. The road is hazardous enough, but now there will be someone trying to get in and out of that driveway into a busy, hairpin-turn road. It’s insane. Plus they are trying to save a big Douglas fir there and I doubt it will survive the disturbance to its ground. And just wait till the hill behind it subsides. Wheeeee!

    • Azimuth November 8, 2021 (8:29 am)

      Just mixed messages from the city. “We want trees!” from one side of the mouth to “cut anything you want and fill up the lot with house” out the other side.

  • UncleTorvald November 8, 2021 (7:51 am)

    I go by there everyday and think ‘Stump Orchard’

  • Montanapup November 8, 2021 (7:53 am)

    Now it’s ALL an eyesore, development and banner. :/

  • M November 8, 2021 (8:03 am)

    Curious if it’s the same developer who had several liens and lawsuits against him in the Wenatchee Valley about a decade ago. He filed for bankruptcy.

    • WSB November 8, 2021 (6:13 pm)

      The documents did not refer to backgrounds of either plaintiff or defendants. The court system lists a bankruptcy filing for someone of the same name, but could be a senior/junior/III (as I sometimes see in criminal files) so I would not want to assume.

    • F November 9, 2021 (4:23 pm)

      Yes, that’s the same man. 

  • Bonair Pl November 8, 2021 (8:23 am)

    For enough money, the City of Seattle will build anything anywhere.   I live on a single-lane road in an ECA that is defined by the Department of Construction as “Liquefaction Prone” and a “Potential Landslide Area”.    In spite of all the extenuating circumstances, the City has permitted a plan to subdivide 2 lots into 3 on the site and are squeezing in row houses that will have to sell for at least $1million each to return the investment.    The covenants tied to the project remove liability from the City and transfer it to the developer, leaving the local neighborhood exposed.   Conveniently, the developer has also agreed to the false cover of a “Local Improvement District” to spare himself the burden of creating low income housing.   There are many loopholes and zero accountability on the part of Seattle local government when it comes to permtting these projects. 

    • Gatewood resident November 8, 2021 (12:29 pm)

       I live on a single-lane road in an ECA

      “it’s ok because I already live here but new development is bad” is maybe the most seattle thing ever, but really only if combined with a gripe about unaffordable housing“

  • Nemah November 8, 2021 (9:22 am)

    I’ve dealt with the developer in the past.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

  • Greedy? November 8, 2021 (9:24 am)

    Appreciate all of the amateur ‘civil engineers’ piping in their expertise in such an un-civil  manner.Yes, I have built homes on West Seattle steepest slopes.   The Seattle ECA Steep Slope ordinance was radically changed after the deluges and slides of  1996.  Since then, I would be hard pressed to cite any West Seattle examples (or even greater Seattle) of hillside homes despite as someone above commented they are, “perfect candidate for collapse or a slide.”  We can cite multiple examples of infamous homeowner tree violations( the judge in Mt Baker the group on 36th SW), but even those saw no resulting hill-slides.Hillside developments are so highly regulated and scrutinized (a developer is even required to sign a legal document of accountability should a slide occur), that they actually stabilize the slope by capturing and removing surface water. Missing from my reading of this is the DCI’s inspectors and code enforcement in this.  The development has highly detailed topographic survey with all trees abate caliper of 4″ located and defined.  Any violation of the extremely detailed Restoration Plan, produced by “a qualified professional,” will now be evident.Yes, I still own and pay high taxes in vacant West Seattle that people regularly posting here consider ‘their greenspace.’  I own century old legal building plots that  were declared unbuildable by Seattle in 2015.  They were small inexpensive lots valued at $16,000 each.  The year Seattle banned development King County increased the assessment of each of my 6 parcels from $16,000 to $69,000 on these now worthless for development building lots.  I also make the point that developers like myself who are stuck with these un-buildable lots continue to pay taxes as the value rises,  all the while the property is providing free value to the community in trees, foliage and carbon capture.

    • Jay November 8, 2021 (3:04 pm)

      So that’s about $4k a year for six lots, right? Donate them to an outdoors nonprofit or the parks department, take the $414k writeoff, and lose the tax burden going forward. Turn it into a real green space and let people recreate on it. You’d be a local legend, and you’ll come out ahead financially vs holding on to the property since I can’t imagine it further appreciating or being able to sell it.

      • Geedy November 8, 2021 (7:41 pm)

        Great idea Jay.                                                                                                           Had the same suggestion from a friend.  Several years ago I approached Seattle Parks as well as The Green Space Coalition whose meeting notices were seen frequently on WSB (until they stopped?).  The City of Seattle did not want them.  The Green Space Coalition representative I met to show the parcels told me they could not afford them because of the taxes King County had assessed.I also approached the Seattle Parks Dept about donating another large 10,000 +parcel adjacent to a park but the head of Seattle Parks acquisitions rejected it because it was not contiguous to the park.

        • Jay November 9, 2021 (4:10 pm)

          I’m really shocked that the Green Space Coalition doesn’t have a property tax exemption. That’s nuts! I’d try emailing Dow Constantine’s office directly to see if something can be worked out because it really seems like a win-win-win situation to have this go through. Sorry you’re going through this. Maybe WSB could help find people to get involved.

      • Rick November 10, 2021 (4:52 pm)

        You are so good with others money. But that’s Seattle.

    • Phil Killham November 12, 2021 (8:35 am)

      Greedy, I would love to connect with you regarding your un-buildable lots.

  • Couper November 8, 2021 (11:19 am)

    What is the city ordinance on cutting trees, especially 80’ high mature cedar trees  and their limbs, on your property or the  adjacent neighboring  property?

  • Al King November 8, 2021 (12:26 pm)

    Couper. Fill out all the paperwork the city requires. Pay the fee. City gives you cutting permit. Easy as that.

    • Peter S. November 8, 2021 (8:09 pm)

      Oh no it’s not.  Trust me.  I’ve got a large, non-native evergreen tree in my backyard planted by the previous owner, that I’d like to remove.  Sheds needles like crazy, clogging gutters, smothering the lawn, and shading out other plants and trees that are trying to grow.  The trunk diameter is under the rule that would make it a (non-native) “exceptional” tree.  DCLU told me no way I could cut it down since it’s within the somewhat haphazardly drawn ECA that runs through the middle of my house, which has been here since the ’50’s.     There are plenty of other adjacent trees and I’d be willing to plant something native as a replacement, but NOPE.  I’m contemplating the merits of engaging a land use attorney.     

      • Greedy November 8, 2021 (8:42 pm)

          Al King may have been correct 30 years ago but he is clearly ignorant of the current tree codes (and much less those being proposed). Land use attorney route is costly and fruitless.  The first requirement for Peter S would be a costly $3,000 topographical survey to challenge the city’s inaccurate LIDAR generated Steep Slope Maps.

      • Ms. Sparkles November 9, 2021 (10:38 am)

        Serious question – what would happen if you just removed it anyway?  Would the city know?  Or have you tried to hire someone and they told you they can’t?

        • Greedy November 9, 2021 (1:23 pm)

          Perhaps the best solution Ms. Sparkles!  The Seattle DCI enforcement of tree violations is not proactive.  The violation must be formally reported to the DCI.   Penalties are serious but rarely meted out.  There inspectors are not allowed to trespass upon private property to document tree removal.  Sometimes the inspectors must witness the illegal work, damning photos are ignored.  Illegal tree removal is probably happening as you read this.  I have been reported repeatedly by a neighbor and been issued a violation falsely for a tree I had a permit to remove.

        • Peter S. November 9, 2021 (6:34 pm)

          Good question and serious answer:  I considered that.  I solicited bids from three well-known local tree services.  Two of them told me I needed a permit.  One didn’t.  The one that didn’t seemed a little cowboy-ish to the point I was hesitant to use them lest they drop tree parts on my or one of my neighbors’ houses.  Unfortunately, it’s a fairly conspicuous tree.  None of my adjacent neighbors would complain.  In fact, they’d be glad it was gone.  But, some busybody might notice and complain.    So, I submitted the request for permit.  That’s when I got the hard “no” due to the ECA which runs through my bedroom.  One of my neighbors laughed at me when I told him I was trying to go through proper channels,  For the record, removing this tree in no way gives me any view.  I live adjacent to a greenbelt and like trees.  I wouldn’t want it gone if it weren’t for the afore-mentioned issues.

  • eric November 8, 2021 (2:04 pm)

    I thank god I got rid of my trees back when I did (on my property btw).  You’re all nuts.  Want trees? Plant some!!! They grow fast, they really do.  If you have nothing better to do an wanna save trees, drive along I5 and look further than 20 feet past the tree lined edge , millions have been cut down.  Millions!  Go over there and complain and make a difference.   If that building was in danger of sliding, it would have called for pin piles, not trees for stabilization.  

    • Jay November 8, 2021 (4:01 pm)

      Someone else cut trees on the owner’s property to improve a third party’s view. Would you really be okay with someone cutting down trees on your property to improve their view or for firewood?

  • tom November 8, 2021 (3:21 pm)

    maybe the homeless could live on your lots?

    • greedy November 8, 2021 (5:24 pm)

      Great question Tom. They probably do.

  • Al King November 9, 2021 (7:08 am)

    Greedy. When dad died 5 years ago we got permits to top and cut trees on a steep slope above Alki before listing his house.  Not 30 years ago. 30 years ago he didn’t need permits-city didn’t care. We filled out ALL the required paperwork-pictures-certified arborist-etc. After 10 days we got our permits. No follow-up questions asked-no visit either.  

  • bolo November 9, 2021 (4:54 pm)

    What’s this “viewshed,” that’s a new one on me. What does it mean?

Sorry, comment time is over.